when you talk about "the Germans" or "Germany", don't forget the differences which exist between different groups involved (also with lots of simplifications of cause)
- our general public is highly pacifistic and doesn't want to see anyone harmed by Germans ever again (and probably to a lesser degree our soldiers to be killed)
- our politicians found it a wonderful idea "to demonstrate commitment and solidarity" and deployed the Bundeswehr - with little more than the idea that Srebrenica (and of cause Auschwitz) had proven you must never turn away from bad things going on and the hope, that the military will figure out a strategy when in theater
- our senior ranks are even more still stuck in the Balkan. They still somehow expect that the situation will improve, if only we can stay on in our bases long enough. Of cause in this world-view, taking risks to own troops doesn't pay out (as does serious Intel-gathering). Losing soldiers in combat is the best way to ruin your career. Improving the PRT however (protection measures as well as troop welfare or beautification or at least environmental protection measures ) DOES pay out, for you can easily impress any visitor and even send photos to your superiors.
- as a personal experience, many young officers who actually served OUTSIDE the camps find such a gap between what they experienced and what the FOBbits believe, that they see little appeal in staying in the army after their initial contract expires. That is to say we DO go out at night (in Badakhshan for example you can not reach, let alone operate in many areas in less than a couple of days); we HAVE some combat-experience and at least some of us wish to ACHIEVE something when we put ourselves and our soldiers at risk. However, the general idea "up there" is still, that our presence will improve the situation, not our actions. in the absence of "strategy top-down; operations bottom-up" we do some "no strategy; operations top-down" which mostly amounts to "cover is more important than impact".
What I want to point out - although after several tours, I personnally feel some pain confessing it: I guess that if our approach doesn't change (perhaps after the elections) for the overall mission it would make a minor difference if Germany would leave. However, there is also room for improvement, German forces and junior leaders mostly want to achieve something and I am pretty sure they could (...and they do night-patrols...). I just cannot figure out how the higher echelons could be brought to a point where they would let their troops do their jobs without force protection measures interfering (but I have deepest sympathy for Gen McChrystals handling of this case if his intent was to build up pressure). I guess I too have to follow our tried & tested Afghanistan-Strategy in this case: Smile and Hope (and Wave).
Abu Muqawama: Post
Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS. Abu Muqawama retains the right to delete comments that include words that incite violence; are predatory, hateful, or intended to intimidate or harass; or degrade people on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. In summary, don't be a jerk.
Outrage in Germany, Resignation in Kunduz
Today's Washington Post has a fascinating pair of articles on the Kunduz bombing. The first details the way in which the Kunduz bombing has been received in Germany, while the second details how it has been received in Afghanistan. In Afghanistan:
This time, according to human rights activists and foreign diplomats, rising Afghan anger toward the Taliban in the once-tranquil north, a swift public apology by U.S. military officials and national preoccupation with a troubled presidential election have combined to deflect popular outrage over the bombing.
"There has been a marked difference in the way the U.S. military dealt with this incident. Instead of arguing about the number of casualties, as has happened often in the past, they recognized the Afghan perception and addressed it," said a senior U.N. official here. "This is very heartening, and it bodes well for the coming months as this conflict inevitably continues."
Within 24 hours, the senior U.S. military commander here, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, visited the site of the bombed trucks in Kunduz province and then delivered a personal message on Afghan television, expressing his concern and promising a full investigation.
"Just showing his face helped a lot," said Ahmad Nader Nadery, a member of the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission.
Regardless of whether most of those killed in the bombing were civilians or Taliban fighters, there was genuine shock among many Germans that one of their military commanders could have been responsible for an attack that killed so many people.
About 4,200 German troops are stationed in Afghanistan, the third-largest foreign contingent, after the those of the United States and Britain. But the German troops are generally restricted from engaging in combat operations and concentrate instead on civilian reconstruction programs.
The government approved sending troops to Afghanistan as part of a peacekeeping operation but officially says it is not involved in a war. The German constitution, adopted after the defeat of the Nazis, prohibits the country from going to war unless it or one of its allies is directly attacked by another state.
"In Afghanistan it is like a war, but for us it is not a war," said Walter Kolbow, a Social Democrat and longtime member of the defense committee in the German Parliament. "It is an important distinction."
I had breakfast with the German scholar Thomas Rid yesterday, and since I am too ignorant to speak the language of Goethe, he was telling me all about how the Kunduz bombing is dominating the German media at the moment and how it is being received. A few military professionals and governmental officials are upset with General McChrystal and the way in which he allowed reporters -- most notably Rajiv Chandrasekaran -- to travel with him as he investigated what happened. (These officials perhaps fail to see how the commander's openness with the media and readiness to accept responsibility -- while arriving at the expense of German pride, perhaps -- is in part responsible for the way in which the bombing has been received in Afghanistan.) But most Germans, Thomas was telling me, are simply livid at the defense ministry, which, among other things, failed to update its statement on the website for three days.
Jung, the German defense minister, on Sunday called the bombing "absolutely necessary," saying his officers had "very detailed information" indicating that the Taliban planned to use the hijacked fuel tankers to attack a German outpost in Kunduz. He also said that "only Taliban terrorists" were killed, though he backtracked a day later and said civilians were among the dead.
Markus Kaim, an analyst at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs, said that many legislators already distrusted Jung and that his shifting explanations had only worsened his standing.
"Some members of Parliament would like to kill Franz Josef Jung," he said. "He's more or less lying to the German Parliament and the German public."
That's all fine and good. But this is absurd:
Meanwhile, prosecutors in Potsdam said they were considering whether to open a homicide investigation into the decision by a German military commander to order the airstrike by a U.S. fighter jet, which blew up two hijacked fuel trucks and a crowd of bystanders early Friday in the northern Afghan province of Kunduz.
I guess this is slightly more logical if you don't think your forces are even at war, but still. Meanwhile, the reader comment of the (extended) weekend belongs to "turan saheb":
"A few military
"A few military professionals and governmental officials are upset..."
Is Chancellor Merkel "a few"?
"Merkel Hits Back at NATO Criticism of Air Strike"
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,647679,00.html
"In a speech to parliament, Merkel pledged an extensive probe and said nothing would be glossed over. But she added: "We won't accept prejudgments. I won't tolerate that from anyone, in this country or abroad." She said she had made that "very unmistakably" clear to NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen."
The investigation is legally
The investigation is legally necessary:
I The federal government refuses to officially call the employment in afghanistan a war.
II The law follows the fag. German soldiers are therefore responsible to german law, not afghan law.
III There is no military justice in germany. Soldiers are responsible to the same law enforcement institutions as any everyone else.
Combine that and you get the problem: Fighting german soldiers in afghanistan are bound to the same laws and regulations as any hair stylist in peaceful germany.
The attorny has to probe into the case and try to find any indices of a crime. In prior cases the attornies probed and found no criminal offense citing the special circumstances ofthis employment, the treaties legalizing the german military employment in Afghanistan and the right of self-defense.
And on the political/PR side of things: We might have the worst minister of defense we ever had. And he even surprises those who are sure he's the worst.
"II The law follows the fag.
"II The law follows the fag. "
Me thinks he's talking about the flag ... ;-)
("Flaggenprinzip")
I love how, after literally
I love how, after literally years of sneering German condescension of American operations, suddenly the Germans become uncomfortable with "prejudgments."
Irony.
@Positroll: thank you so
@Positroll: thank you so much. :)
@Foust: Could you please cite one of Merkel's "sneering German condescension of American operations"?
It is what it is. Germany is
It is what it is. Germany is a special case, I attended some demonstrations down there. I would, btw, like to correct a german person who way down in the blog termed Die Linke as "an extension of the DDR communist party". That is not exactly true. Rather, its the dissidents of East Germany who still dislike capitalism combined with some (but not many) old school commie netwerks PLUS the large green/black anarchist movement. And all its enviromental friends.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1655046.stm
I for one am grateful that
I for one am grateful that you duly critized us, or more correctly, our policies. The people in charge have been living in a bubble, hopefully it finally burst.
Another interesting piece of trivia of German Angst: today, defense minister Jung reveals the first Bundeswehr memorial ever, placed very publicly in a side alley behind the ministry building and conceptualized behind closed doors. Obviously parliamentarians protested, they wanted it in plain sight in front of the Reichstag, to symbolize the significance the Bundestag has for the armed forces. But, alas, Jung knew better ... at least this day wasn't the joyful occasion for him that he had hoped for.
Or, to quote Sascha Stoltenow of Bendler-Blog:
"As sign of appreciation to the soldiers, the memorial is appropriate. However, doubts are due as to whom the memorial is really dedicated to. In virtually every publication by the Ministry, one person inappropriatly presents itself in the spotlight: the minister himself. As is the case in the official announcement of the Ministry for today's unveiling. At the beginning of the second paragraph, it says: 'Federal Minister of Defense Dr. Franz Josef Jung, whose initiative prompted the construction, has invited numerous guests from the Parliament and the public life.' Those who are supposed to be honored have been banished into the fifth paragraph."
@califax: I'm too lazy to look for an article right now, but I specifically remember when after the NATO summit earlier this year the minister said that he was glad that the Allies finally adopted the "comprehensive approach" that we had been practising so successfully for the last years. So, yeah ...
@Fnord: Well, this is hotly debated here as well. You're basically right that it's a colorful bunch, to say the least. However, you forgot the disappointed former members of the social democrats (of the Oskar Lafontaine persuasion), who make up most of die Linke in the west.
To see Foust, who since 2006
To see Foust, who since 2006 has been continuously seen sneering American condescension of German operations, now bickering about a return to that is quite amazing.
For years the Germans did say that the U.S. should work with less kinetics in Afghanistan and more population centric. Now the U.S. mode has changed to be less kinetic and more population centric. Could it be that the German criticism of the former U.S. procedures was correct?
Note on the legal stuff:
As Positroll remarked above, from the legal standpoint Germany is NOT at war in Afghanistan and therefore normal civil laws and legal procedures apply to the operations.
To change that war would have to be formally declared (war against whom) by both houses the parliament. That would automatically trigger several other special legal procedures. Federal law would, for example, then automatically supersede all state law and the usual law making procedures would change and be shortened.
The alternative is to create a special expedition law for the military which would probably only pass the supreme court after some deep changes to the German constitution.
The German public will not allow those steps without much public discussion.
Fnord, don't make it too
Fnord, don't make it too complicated. Consider: Obama is a communist in the American eye ... ;-)
BTW, according to the Spiegel, the German soldiers are celebrated in the Kunduz area by the locals, for finally eliminating a good part ot the Taliban threat ... They get presents by ANA soldiers, and a local Mullah thanked them for taking out the Talibs ... (in German) http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,647593,00.html
@Gruendlich: Uhh, I do have
@Gruendlich: Uhh, I do have bad eyes, I know, but really - when I watched tv today Ms. Merkel did so totally much look like, you know, not being Mr. Jung. How comes? ;)
"...a swift public apology
"...a swift public apology by U.S. military officials...deflect popular outrage over the bombing."
Well fk me sideways, who'd have thought that wouldn't hurt. Knowing that, some bastard might have tried it prior to 2009.
I don't know much about the UCMJ, but I doubt the instant apology when you kill dozens of civilians -- which then puts them in a better mood that insisting their dead kin terrorists while they're mourning -- is legally binding on any future investigations/action. I don't know but there may some kind of best course of action lesson here a multi-year, multi-billion joint task force investigation can ferret out.
@califax: Well then, it just
@califax: Well then, it just so happens I'm just watching Merkels Regierungserklärung and have found a wonderful line:
"Es ist weitgehend auf das beharrliche Engagement der Bundesregierung und auch des deutschen Bundestages zurückzuführen, dass nunmehr auch alle unsere Partner, auch alle in der NATO, von diesem Ansatz überzeugt sind. Wurde die Bundeswehr in der Vergangenheit oft auch als Brunnenbauer verspottet, so ist die Politik der 'vernetzten Sicherheit' heute Konsens unter den Verbündeten. Das ist ein nachhaltiger Erfolg deutscher Afghanistanpolitik."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deQTqPh8S-c
Around 1:05. Sorry, too lazy to translate.
Anyway, to further elaborate on what the anonymous visitor had said: Yes, the Americans have been too kinetic in their approach, but I do believe they have addressed that problem. I do not believe, however, that they have changed their approach because they see us as their role model. And I do not believe that Germany has the right amount of "kineticism" in their approach, which is basically none at all. We have no heavy artillery on loaction, we have no combat helicopters (which incidentally don't fly there anyway, unlike the same model the French use), our new IFV programme is years behind and far from deployable, so we use a handful of 30 year old Marder IFVs. Even though they have been there for a year, they have only been used for about 3-4 months now, as a reaction to the deteriorating situation in Kundus. There is absolutely no talk of deploying infantry troops in COPs to protect the population and absolutely no talk of anything resembling a COIN strategy, or any strategy for that matter. All the government does is repeat the same talk of 'comprehensive approach' over and over again, without even understanding yet alone doing it. For them, comprehensive approach means building bridges and water wells and schools while hoping that this will improve the security situation. It has been proven countless times, in Iraq and Afghanistan, that this is not true.
The last sentence in this
The last sentence in this Merkel quote is good entertainment, I agree. Of course I agree with the second part of your comment. Mein Reden seit Anno Pup.
@AM, "That's all fine and
@AM,
"That's all fine and good. But this is absurd: Meanwhile, prosecutors in Potsdam said they were considering whether to open a homicide investigation into the decision by a German military commander to order the airstrike by a U.S. fighter jet,.."
Why are you surprised? Do they not have lawyers in Tennessee? They damn sure have them in DC.
You notice the people defending the absurdity exclude substance for formality? They simply divorce themselves from it. They live in a bubble of procedure and process, and formality. Objective truth (if they even recognize such a concept) is brushed aside. Kind of like DC.
BTW - Read your book. The same bang bang in Astan happening in Iraq in 2006....were you not SOF, you might have experienced the legal system and what a circus it is personally. No offense, it was righteous. That wouldn't matter if it was second guessed. You would have got off, after some personal Hell. And expense. And then left the Army ASAP.
And PS - if we don't arrest or reverse the trend of lawyers in the TOC second guessing our decisions in war - we're headed the same way as Germany. And most of Europe.
Er, but Germany is not at
Er, but Germany is not at war.
"And PS - if we don't arrest
"And PS - if we don't arrest or reverse the trend of lawyers in the TOC second guessing our decisions in war - we're headed the same way as Germany. And most of Europe."
And that would be a tragedy, wouldn't it?
You may even have good health care forced upon you without having to sell the farm.
@Positroll: poppycock.
@Positroll: poppycock. Gerhard Schroeder didn't vanish when he got his job at Gazprom. Not all Americans discount what our allies say about us.
@Joshua Foust: ??? Don't get
@Joshua Foust:
??? Don't get your point ... are you confusing me with Califax, as the visitor above does?
(I don't agree with "visitor" on the constitutional law part, btw -
imO a simple law would suffice to remedy most problems)
P.S. Having difficulties commenting on you blog - could be my fault, though,
I need to update my PDF-version and the old version somehow messes up things ...
Considering the much-cited
Considering the much-cited expression of approval among Kunduz locals to the incident, as it had killed "only taliban and thieves": could it just be that ethnical hate lurks behind these statements? I have heard about lasting difficulties between Pashtuns, Tajiks, Turkmens, Hazara, whatever - but am not nearly deep enough into this to see through. what strikes me, however, is to read about "taliban and their relatives" (in various media) that "deserved no other". I´d be interested if someone could clarify me on that... many thanks in advance.
Transnational Jihadi Art
Transnational Jihadi Art
Visitor, Germany has an Army
Visitor,
Germany has an Army in a war zone. They're killing people. You could assert (and have) you are not at war (so much for Article 5 of NATO). You can also assert they are not in Afghanistan. You may well assert you are not homo sapiens. I can assert I am a winged unicorn. We could assert this is the surface of Venus.
But the actual fact remains. The law seems to exist these days for purposes of obscuration, as opposed to order.
Curious.
@Health Care - we have the best health care in the world, and most of the world's R&D. That's why it costs more. There is an access problem, there is also the problem of govt skewing the market and costs by 1) actually rigging the racktets for the insurance companies by restricting their access to certain markets, and 2) not paying it's bills re Medicare and Medicaid 3) 70-100 billion dollars a year in Medicare/Medicaid fraud 4) those with private insurance being overbilled to make up the shortfall for Medicare/Medicaid underpaying 30%.
Oh, and while we're all gonna die, nothing says we have to be free. Freedom is quite rare, and precarious.
Elf: The Norwegians are not
Elf: The Norwegians are not at War either, we are on a "mission to support the Afghan government due to a UNresolution". It means we have a stability-op ROE, not a warfighting ROE.
I am not German. (Though
I am not German. (Though "Visitor" suggests alien to me).
You have no time for the LOAC, which is your business, but since Germany is not (officially) at war, the LOAC are not the problem -- they do not apply here.
great discussion... How to
great discussion... How to Lose Thigh Fat
Groom Speeches Example
Add your comment